I found this interesting from the c3 denier blog. I enjoy a good smack down type conversation. If this group is interested I would like to collect the science info that counters the false assertions about climate science.

What Is A "Climate Change Denier"? Are They Just Imaginary Beings That Climate Doomsday Alarmists Say Exist?A recent Nature journal article was loaded with the provocative and non-scientific terms, including 'climate change denier' - it's terminology completely disconnected from reality and specifically used to incite hatred and revulsionRead here. The terms climate change 'denier' and 'denial' are used frequently for the sole purpose of denigrating opponents. They are terms of hate that the feeble-minded employ with delight, including the once highly esteemed science journal Nature.

In reality, the vast majority of 'IPCC global warming' skeptics are not climate change deniers, which honest, objective scientists and reporters know. Factually speaking, there are very few climate change deniers, if any, who can be identified and named - basically, they really don't exist.

As did many others, CAGW skeptic Joanne Nova took umbrage with a recent Nature "science" article that was loaded with variations of the term 'climate change denier'. She wrote an excellent letter to the lead author of the article, challenging his ignorance and biases. Below is a brief list summarizing her letter's main points that most skeptics believe/accept, plus additions by 'C3':

1.That the earth has warmed in the last century2.That humans produce CO23.That CO2 levels are rising4.That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming5.That earth may experience a 1.2°C temperature increase from a doubling of CO26.That humans can cause climate change via other means than CO27.That natural/solar/cosmic forces are responsible for majority of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age

8.That modern warming is not "accelerating"9.That modern warming is not "unprecedented"10.That modern warming is not "unequivocal"11.That past IPCC global climate model predictions have been spectacularly wrong12.That climate model simulations are not empirical evidence13.There is no empirical evidence supporting an temperature amplification from 1.2°C to 4°C14.There is no empirical evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor15.There is no empirical evidence for a human caused tropical atmosphere 'hot spot'16.There is no empirical evidence for CO2-induced climate 'tipping points' (ie, runaway positive feedbacks)

•Finally, that the IPCC has zero climate observation datasets that support the last 4 points•Finally, that the IPCC has zero studies based exclusively on empirical evidence (sans computer predictions) that support the last 4 pointsSo, what really is a 'climate change denier'?

Well it's not someone who believes the above, which represents the majority of skeptics (and 'lukewarmers') regarding the IPCC's human-caused catastrophic global warming "science". If there was actual empirical measurements and irrefutable studies (sans climate model simulations) supporting the IPCC's CAGW claims and predictions, then skeptics, and any of those in-the-bedroom-closet boogieman deniers, would likely not exist except in the conspiracy-addled brains of climate doomsday believers.

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

Holy double post Batman. I don’t find this particularly useful. This is demeaning and an ad hominem attack. I think we can do better don’t you?

I’m sorry folks but this kind of rhetoric really provokes concern if you are a student of history. Words mean things. Words mean things. Words mean things. Be careful with your words.

I left the public education system under the belief of “warming” or “climate change” was happening. In my childhood bedroom you can still find old ecology flag stickers on my door. A green “E” where the stars on the United States flag would be, and differing strips of green where the red and white strips would be. Then something happened. Someone and I don’t remember who suggested Nuremberg style trails for those who are typically called deniers. It was at that point I thought that there is something else going on here. Something wrong. Something out of sight. Something hidden. It is at that point I decided to seek out the "denier" side. To find out just what they were all about. The jury is still out but I must admit their side has just as much merit as the side I have grown up with. I will field any questions put to me following that remark.

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.

Read the OP. Point 2 may be of interest to you.

Clearly you are extreemly close minded. You should understand thsi about yourself.

Holy double post Batman. I don’t find this particularly useful. This is demeaning and an ad hominem attack. I think we can do better don’t you?

I’m sorry folks but this kind of rhetoric really provokes concern if you are a student of history. Words mean things. Words mean things. Words mean things. Be careful with your words.

I left the public education system under the belief of “warming” or “climate change” was happening. In my childhood bedroom you can still find old ecology flag stickers on my door. A green “E” where the stars on the United States flag would be, and differing strips of green where the red and white strips would be. Then something happened. Someone and I don’t remember who suggested Nuremberg style trails for those who are typically called deniers. It was at that point I thought that there is something else going on here. Something wrong. Something out of sight. Something hidden. It is at that point I decided to seek out the "denier" side. To find out just what they were all about. The jury is still out but I must admit their side has just as much merit as the side I have grown up with. I will field any questions put to me following that remark.

You mean "merit" which does not include evidence and actual science?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Basically, that article seems to been written by someone who's decided they no longer want to discuss the subject in any way but the way that makes them happy and feel protected.As is often the case in the climate-debate, denigelicals attack those that won't drink their koolaid as such horrible left-leaning commies out to yet again to take over the world. They, of course, intend to save the rest of us from this, whether we like it or not.

What is a Climate-denier?

One that refuses to look at the data with their mind working.

Read the OP. Point 2 may be of interest to you.

Clearly you are extreemly close minded. You should understand thsi about yourself.

What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?

No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.

What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?

No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.

I have and she still says that she has only discussed the points with who she calls the main leaders of the skeptics, which is not the deniers and certainly not "most" deniers by any means. I was just recently told that a single volcano releases more CO2 than mankind has in all of history, which is just as false as when I first heard it.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

What would make one closed minded to not accept the fact that human actions add multiple gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each and every year? Or are you falling back on that old strawman meme about breathing and cycling carbon through the system?

No, I say you are close minded because you have not read the second point in the OP where she says the humans are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere. And point 3, and point 4. Try reading the OP slowly.

To be fair, the 2nd point says humans produce CO2, and nothing is stated about the levels produced. You seem to think it says "lots" to the atmosphere, which is not the case.

The 3rd point is unconnected to point 2 in that levels may be admittedly rising according to some, but possibly due to "natural" causes.

The 4th point is even disputed by some folks we have seen in recent forum discussions in other locations.

Even some of Jo Nova's blog comments show similar disagreement with some of the points.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.

Quote:

The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically. My first cursory search returned 0.1%. The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%

And this is the view of Roger Pielke one of the few scientists who question climate the severity of climate.

Quote:

After repeated communication with the authors of http://www.populartechnology.net I have concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. That list a paper on which I am a coauthor as "skeptical." Our paper supports the view that man-made climate change is a substantial danger to human health and the environment. The site refused to remove our paper(s) from their list after repeated written requests to do so.

I also note the number of articles that have been published in what I can only describe as second rate journals.